Skyfall

The James Bond series has powered through the decades, exciting and frustrating audiences with many peaks and valleys.  It seems the franchise has been riding a roller coaster, with as many highs as there were lows, and a whole lot of chugging along the middle.  Daniel Craig's first film, Casino Royale, was undoubtedly a high. but its follow-up Quantum of Solace was definitely a step the in wrong direction.

...And then came Skyfall, which is arguably James Bond at its peak.  Based on the stats, Skyfall is probably the most successful Bond film to date.  The movie grossed $304,360,277 in the U.S. box office and cracked $1 billion worldwide, making it the biggest box office hit of the franchise.  Even with inflation accounted for, Skyfall ranks third on the list behind Goldfinger and Thunderball.  The movie was nominated for five Oscars, winning two of them.  Rotten Tomatoes' aggregation of critics (as of June 2017) marks Skyfall as the best of the series.  In short, the movie was a monstrous critical and audience favorite.

Is Skyfall really that good?  Well, no.  It's good, but it's not THAT good.  But I wanted to start with this point because there is no denying that the film became a bit of an phenomenon, taking the world by storm, and being hoisted up into a rarified atmosphere - this was the Bond film that was getting touted as a potential Best Picture nominee, after all.  And when a genre film crosses over into that sort of critical conversation, it's just a fascinating thing to think about.  

It is really interesting to consider why the world responded the way it did.  I think there are a couple of elements at play here.  For one thing, Eon Productions learned a lesson from the frenzied pace of Quantum of Solace, which just seems like it was a rush job from the very beginning to capitalize on the success of Casino Royale.  They took their time with Skyfall, and took a full four years to make sure they got it right.

The slower pace actually could apply to the film itself, too!  Skyfall is more of a slowburn. It's measured, calculating, and builds to its action sequences instead of charging from explosive set piece to explosive set piece without anything inbetween.  It's just a really well constructed film.  Which I suppose is what this all comes down to.  Skyfall is just an incredibly well made movie and deserved to be a massive hit.

And it makes sense when you look at the team they put together.  Maybe critics were pre-disposed to like the movie because the esteemed Sam Mendes was brought on as director.  An Academy Award-winner for American Beauty, Mendes also directed Revolutionary Road, Road to Perdition, and Jarhead, making him one of the best critically well-regarded filmmakers to ever step into the Bond director's chair.  And the production team Mendes put together was top-notch.  He brought back the superb editor Stuart Baird, who had also edited Casino Royale (as well as Superman, Lethal Weapon, Gorillas in the Mist, and a bunch of other films).   He also brought onboard Thomas Newman as composer, an unusual choice as Newman usually sticks with drama (The Shawshank Redemption) or animated films (Finding Nemo).  And while I do miss David Arnold, who had worked on the previous five Bond films, I have to say that Newman produced a stylish and exciting action score for his first Bond film.  To round out the music end of things, the award-winning singer Adele was hired for the title song, and she wrote a booming powerhouse of a song that reminds me of the classic days of Shirley Bassey.  Sam Mendes has always had an eye for the visual, and his movies always look brilliant.  For Skyfall, he returned to the master of light, Roger Deakins, who had shot Jarhead (as well as most of the Coen Brothers' movies).  I'll talk about the result more later, but Deakins' photography in this film is brilliant.  As far as the writing team, the usual Bond writers Neal Purvis and  Robert Wade were joined by John Logan - who is admittedly a mixed bag for me personally. Good John Logan wrote Gladiator, Hugo and Aviator.  Bad John Logan gave us Star Trek: Nemesis and The Time Machine.  But I am happy to say that Logan is firing on all cylinders here.

So with that pedigree of talent added to the well oiled machine that is Eon Productions, is there any doubt that Skyfall would have been good?  Were critics slapped silly by the sheer amount of talent involved and committed to liking the film before it even came out?  Maybe.

The story is certainly not original.  In the film's opening scene, a hard drive containing the identities of all the British undercover agents is stolen, and Bond is now on a mission to get it back.  We've seen this storyline before, but this time it is only an entry point for the true narrative.  The culprit is former British agent Silva (Javier Bardem, No Country for Old Men), who has targeted MI6 and specifically his old boss M (Judi Dench, Philomena).  He could not care less about the hard drive.  It's just a means to an end.  And that end needs to involve M's death.

Skyfall's ride truly is entertaining, with some stunning set pieces.  From the shadows and neon beams of Shanghai to the komodo dragon sequence in the Macao casino to a thrilling firefight during a government oversight hearing, there are several thrilling and memorable set pieces in this movie. Javier Bardem is a brilliant villain - witty, charming, a bit insane, and truly the other side of the coin that is James Bond.  And Bardem's performance is full of just bizarre acting choices that aren't just entertaining; they are right for the character.  He is a top five villain for me.  Other newcomers include Ralph Fiennes (The English Patient) as a government officer trying to reign in MI6, Naomie Harris (Moonlight) as the new Moneypenny, Ben Whishaw (Perfume) as the new Q, Bérénine Marlohe (Twin Peaks) as the femme fatale who works for Silva, and the legendary Albert Finney (Tom Jones) as the groundskeeper of the old Bond Family estate - the film's namesake, Skyfall.  Now that is one hell of a cast.

So, yes, Skyfall is a really good film, but with the amount of talent involved, it had better have been! But we should be clear here - this is not the best Bond film.  Even if in many ways it was the most successful, and a high water mark for the franchise, the film has its flaws and has been fairly criticized by a lot of people.  I should warn you I am getting into SPOILER territory here.

The problem with Skyfall is that it kind of starts to fall apart the more you think about it.  The movie is so stylish and so well put together that it is only when you step back that you start to see the cracks forming.  Silva's revenge plot is INSANELY complicated.  It involves getting captured on purpose and having his equipment confiscated, knowing the exact moment that Q will try to access said stolen equipment, which will then infect MI6 with a virus.  Silva will then escape, knowing that James Bond will follow him because he planted explosives ahead of time in the exact tunnel they will be running down. This explosion will then send a subway train that Silva knew would be driving by at that exact instant hurdling towards James Bond's head.  Outside the subway station, henchmen walk by a door at the exact moment Silva gets out of the tunnel (such impeccable timing!) and give him a police officer's uniform so they can walk to a government committee hearing where M is being questioned and assassinate her.  That plan...is really complicated and even writing it gives me a bit of a headache. Suspension of disbelief is a crucial part of any movie-going experience, and Skyfall doesn't just flirt with that line; it hulks out and shatters it.  The highest compliment I can give the film is that it is so well made that instead of yelling at the screen, you sit back and enjoy the ride.  It's only later that you say, "Wait, what?  WTF?!!?"

The movie also falls flat when it comes to the comedy.  The producers talked about injecting some comedy into the proceedings to lighten the tone.  Well, they fail at that.  When the film is as dark as this, any comedic moments stick out like a sore thumb.  Better to not even try.  And it's not that Daniel Craig can't perform comedy; Casino Royale has some big laugh out loud moments.  But the tone of this film just clashes with the comedic bits they try to sprinkle in.

The more I think about it, the more I dislike the ending, too.  Bond does kill Silva, but not before the villain mortally wounds M.  Which means, wait a minute, the bad guys win?  Silva doesn't want to conquer the world and seems perfectly willing to die as long as he can take M down with him.  In fact, he almost prefers to die so he doesn't have to deal with this annoying world any more.  And that is exactly what happens. He and his private army are destroyed but he kills M in the process...so he wins.  And James Bond loses.  Which is an interesting development if that was the plan going in, but I really don't think it was.  I think the studio really thinks Bond came out of this film as the winner, but nothing could be further from the truth. Bond loses. And the whole thing is really an unceremonial way to dispose of the terrific Judi Dench, who is arguably the coolest M the franchise has ever had.   They should have just let her retire gracefully.

Do any of these complaints ruin the film?  Absolutely not.  This is a stylish, expertly made thriller and it really does rank among the best of the franchise.  But these are the moments that pull it down, making it less than its reputation.  It's in the upper echelon, but it is not the top dog, no matter what the stats say. 

The one other thing I wanted to mention is that I love how this film sets up the franchise for additional installments.  Ralph Fiennes slips seamlessly into the role as the new M, we have a new Moneypenny for Bond to flirt with and a new Q for Bond to frustrate.  The new MI6 offices closely resemble the spy headquarters during the Connery and Moore eras.  The franchise was perfectly propped up, brimming with confidence and energy and ready to conquer the future.  Shame that future would bring us the pain that is Spectre.


RANKINGS:

As I said, Skyfall really is among the best of the franchise.  But a few of those problematic plot developments really knock it down a few spots.  It's not Casino Royale, which is almost perfect, nor perfect embodiments of the Bond formula like Goldfinger or Thunderball, nor is it as solidly and cleverly plotted as From Russia With Love.  But it is easily better than just about everything else.  It's a worthy entry into the Top Five.

1. Casino Royale
2. Thunderball
3. From Russia With Love
4. Goldfinger
5. Skyfall
6. The Spy Who Loved Me
7. Goldeneye
8. The Living Daylights
9. Dr. No
10. Octopussy
11. For Your Eyes Only
12. Tomorrow Never Dies
13. Live and Let Die
14. License to Kill
15. Man with the Golden Gun
16. Quantum of Solace
17. Diamonds are Forever
18. Die Another Day
19. The World is Not Enough
20. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
21. Moonraker
22. You Only Live Twice
23. A View to a Kill


MVP:

This one is easy.  Roger Deakins performs a miracle with his brilliant cinematography in this film. Whether it is the cool blues of Shanghai or the burnt oranges of Macao, Deakins' use of color and light is a joy to behold.  His camera movement is just superb.  I'm singling out the silhouette fight in the Shanghai skyscrapper, which is a brilliant exercise in lighting and camera movement - easily the best sequence of the movie and possibly the entire Craig run.  It's a stunning couple of minutes. Deakins' work in this film easily makes Skyfall the best looking Bond film ever made.  He deserves MVP for that alone.  But I would take it even further than that.  I think Skyfall is probably the best looking action film I've ever seen.  Ever.  Find me something that looks better.  I really don't think you can.

From that perspective, how could he NOT get MVP?!?

It is a infuriating to me that he lost this Oscar!


BEST LINE:

Silva (to Bond): What is this, if not betrayal?  She sent you off after me, knowing you're not ready, knowing you would likely die.  Mommy was very bad.  


TRIVIA:

The role of the Bond family groundskeeper Kincaid was originally written for Sean Connery.  The plan was to coax Connery out of retirement for the role.  Watching the film, you can just tell it was conceived with the iconic Scot in mind.  But in the end, they opted not to go that route, casting Albert Finney instead.  They thought Connery, the first and best Bond, would distract audiences and take them out of the film.  And they are absolutely right.  It probably would have hurt the movie.  But from a fan's perspective?  Damn, that would have been so cool!!!